QuoteReplyTopic: Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? Posted: November 17 2013 at 05:09

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?

Eclectic prog is a sub-genre entirely of our own making. It did not exist at all at the time KC were about in the 1970's.

Crimson were one of the archetypal art rock/progressive rock bands in that first wave. Quite honestly, what you want to call them now is somewhat irrelevant. They are classified the way they are here, and in terms of that classification structure, eclectic is about the best fit.

Yeah, I was just about to post something similar as you Steve, but you did it far better than I could ever do.

Over the years people seem to have bought into the stickers and made up genres, and while I do think they have their usage when we're talking music on the forum and we need an easy go-to description, sometimes they backfire on our behinds.

In regards to the op: have you ever heard Discipline? The album practically spawned the math rock scene some 20+ years before it's "conception". Discipline also quite neatly taps into the post punk/ no wave of the early 80s, albeit conveyed in a far more esoteric dressing. Some of it is almost ambient, while other parts are downright snarling and heavy. Is it electronic at heart then? The electronic percussion Bruford experimented with does suggest that, but then again we also get fed big fat guitar riffs, melodic tunes akin to pop ballads, and something like The Sheltering Sky that defies just about any sticker you care to throw at it.

Oh and don't even get me started on Thrak and The ConstruKction of Light....

Lastly, why is this thread posted in general music discussions? I mean, surely we can agree on Fripp and his endless noodling cohorts can be described as a prog proper act eh?

“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

Every Prog band plays eclectic Prog, that is pretty much the thumb-nail description of Prog. Like Progressive the noun is not the same as progressive the adjective, Eclectic the noun is not the same as eclectic the adjective.

Eclectic Prog is another name for a sub-division of Art Rock that we invented. Any band that we put in that subgenre goes towards defining the subgenre

If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman

^^^ Of course you would say all of that. Yes I have heard Discipline and I bet you can agree that Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair sound similar? Meaning that the eclecticism is limited. Let me bring about the PA definition of this "subgenre":

Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core.

I honestly don't hear a difference between anything from Discipline- TOAPP. Same goes for Thrak-TPTB

Well it is true that they have "evolved" but so many other bands have too

Ok then - we hear things differently. Not a big deal. I do however suspect that you'll be in the minority on this one.

The eclectic moniker also very aptly describes KC's development over the years. There's a big difference between the two periods I was on about. The jump from the three 80s albums to the gritty hard hitting albums of Vrooom and Thrak, is undeniably Crimsonesque. While there are distinct similarities to be found, those are still far and between. They practically sounded like a brand new band.

The only band that i personally find more befitting of the 'eclectic' badge is Pink Floyd.

“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

^^^ Of course you would say all of that. Yes I have heard Discipline and I bet you can agree that Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair sound similar? Meaning that the eclecticism is limited. Let me bring about the PA definition of this "subgenre":

Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core.

I honestly don't hear a difference between anything from Discipline- TOAPP. Same goes for Thrak-TPTB

Well it is true that they have "evolved" but so many other bands have too

Instead of thinking of the differences, or lack thereof, between Discipline, Beat, and Three of a Perfect Pair, consider instead the differences between Lizard, Red, Discipline, and The Power to Believe. Each presents a unique blending of influences and styles and demonstrates a long-term evolution that seems to fit the PA definition quoted in your post.

^^^ Of course you would say all of that. Yes I have heard Discipline and I bet you can agree that Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair sound similar? Meaning that the eclecticism is limited. Let me bring about the PA definition of this "subgenre":

Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core.

I honestly don't hear a difference between anything from Discipline- TOAPP. Same goes for Thrak-TPTB

Well it is true that they have "evolved" but so many other bands have too

More random thoughts:

That's not what eclecticism means.

Evolution over time does not necessarily mean each successive album has to progress or change, time scales and events are undefined and not delineated by physical boundaries (ie albums).

Eclectic does not mean different: If A is eclectic and B is similar to A then B is also eclectic. This distinction holds true for progressive too.

Together A and B can be used to define a (new) style if those similarities are different from the eclectic gamut of styles that produced it or from any preexisting defined style.

Style is defined as being similar and unchanged, a plurality of style(s) is by definition eclectic.

Lacking a referential core denotes that the eclectic nature does not favour one particular style over another.

Being mostly X with an influence of Y is eclectic as an adjective but remains stylistically defined as X (ie not as a noun).

When no dominant style pervades we can call that resulting style (X dot Y) eclectic as an adjective and as a noun.

If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman

I don't consider Pink Floyd to be Psychedelic or Space Rock for the last forty years, nor me but I'm not bothered about it, nor me. ABITW2 was a disco hit, you want them to be classed as disco? yeah, let's go for it!

If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman

The only band that i personally find more befitting of the 'eclectic' badge is Pink Floyd.

I agree. However, my DSotM T-Shirt back print says "Still First In Space"

Nice shirt and what a patina I used to own a 'More' shirt that went pink one day after a meeting with one of my newly acquired red socks. Both good and bad though, because while I initially cursed this ruining of my most treasured upper torso garment, it also rendered me with an entirely unique t-shirt that nobody else had. Plus the pink and orange colours really complimented each other in a most psychedelic manner.

I actually think Floyd fits perfectly in psych/space. Hell even on Division Bell you'll find some of the same astronaut leanings in the music. There was always a psychedelic tinge to Floyd, be that in the guitars or the synths. Anyway that's just my take on it - even if I genuinely believe that there never was a more "eclectic" rock band ever.

“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

I think sometimes we stick a label and it remains forever, so King Crimson got the "Eclectic" label, even though their music changed considerably. Same would be for Jethro Tull being a Prog Folk band, when most of their catalog would not fall under that category, or Santana being Jazz-Fusion, etc.

Sometimes we try to put them where you would expect to find them rather than where they would logically, scientifically, musicologically and rationally be placed.

Where one person expects to find them may not necessarily agree with where someone else expects to find them.

If there is conflicting opinion then we tend to use the criteria of the subgenre that best fits their most recognisable(progressive) albums, or the subgenre that they were first associated with, or the subgenre they are most often associated with, or the subgenre that they were most influential in, or the subgenre that they are most popular in.

The most recognisable albums does not necessarily mean their most popular or their best albums.

These criteria are not mutually exclusive, nor are they objective.

If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman

That's an interesting question......there are many bands here that I disagree with the way they are classified.

I see the first two KC as more symphonic prog based on the songs on them but the later things are certainly eclectic and also heavy prog.

I have been fooled a few times after reading reviews and classifications when I bought an album based on these labels..but I still liked the bands so it didn't really matter how they were classified in the end.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum